Lvling-Up Vs Flat Math

[Campbell]

I didn't mean novice as bumbling buffoon. A level 1 character is trained but barely professional. Equivalent to a bench player on a high school sports team (+6 to the check). He can do the motions but a professional sports level star would DESTROY him (+21 to the check).

With time and multiple chances the 1st level can do the upper level items a 15th level can do. But there are many out of reach.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. The novice I presented isn't exactly a bumbling buffoon. Given the scale of DCs presented in the DM's Guidelines he's reasonably competent at breaking and entering and should be able to make his way past a lax guard patrol most of the time. If he meets a kobold or goblin in a dark alley he'd probably get the best of them especially if he got the jump on them (read: Advantage).

Here's the thing. He's still not fit to embrace the adventuring life. Our novice thief does well enough to scrap together some silver, but send him into the goblin's den to steal some jewels and he'll get strung up by his ears. On the other hand, a rogue is a professional thief. He's cool under pressure - regular locks are trivial to him. He knows how to take advantage of unaware enemies. He has a more varied skill set and has learned how to keep to the shadows. He's someone you can count on in a tight spot.

I guess what it comes down to is I really don't like the 3e conception of 1st level adventurers who should have stayed back at the farm. Rogues who can't even pick the simplest of locks. Fighters who quake in their boots at the thought of staring down a couple of kobolds. I never experienced that when I played AD&D.

I'm also pretty skeptical of the idea that a level 10+ character is the equivalent of a professional athlete. In AD&D those are the levels where you're venturing to the Demon Web Pits and spell casters get reality warping magic. That's big damn hero time. Fighters command armies. Thieves run guilds.

I'm okay with some scaling, but adventurers need to be truly competent to start. I just can't wrap my mind around the fiction of what they're doing otherwise.

 

[Gorgoroth]

.

Too bad the stats only boost the modifiers at even levels. I think that sucks.

If it were up to me, every point from 15 and up would be an extra +1. Meaning if you do find that Tome of Strength or whatever, and it boosts your fighter from 16 to 17 strength, you see an immediate improvement. None of this "whoops, I guess I have to find another one because that did nothing to me"...bollocks

Even numbered stat modifiers is one thing from 3.0/PF/4e that I wish would die.

Make every point count! Before 14, who cares, you're just not good enough to see any benefit. Better hit the gym, do some training, etc. It encourages min-maxing but if you HAVE to roll dice for stats, and they don't go up, well you're gonna wish for every +1 you can find, because they are precious. Sooo precious.

 

[Minigiant]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. The novice I presented isn't exactly a bumbling buffoon. Given the scale of DCs presented in the DM's Guidelines he's reasonably competent at breaking and entering and should be able to make his way past a lax guard patrol most of the time. If he meets a kobold or goblin in a dark alley he'd probably get the best of them especially if he got the jump on them (read: Advantage).

Here's the thing. He's still not fit to embrace the adventuring life. Our novice thief does well enough to scrap together some silver, but send him into the goblin's den to steal some jewels and he'll get strung up by his ears. On the other hand, a rogue is a professional thief. He's cool under pressure - regular locks are trivial to him. He knows how to take advantage of unaware enemies. He has a more varied skill set and has learned how to keep to the shadows. He's someone you can count on in a tight spot.

I guess what it comes down to is I really don't like the 3e conception of 1st level adventurers who should have stayed back at the farm. Rogues who can't even pick the simplest of locks. Fighters who quake in their boots at the thought of staring down a couple of kobolds. I never experienced that when I played AD&D.

I'm also pretty skeptical of the idea that a level 10+ character is the equivalent of a professional athlete. In AD&D those are the levels where you're venturing to the Demon Web Pits and spell casters get reality warping magic. That's big damn hero time. Fighters command armies. Thieves run guilds.

I'm okay with some scaling, but adventurers need to be truly competent to start. I just can't wrap my mind around the fiction of what they're doing otherwise.

I don't think we are that far apart. I'm not saying 90s Michael Jordan is a level 15 character. I was saying the 1st level character is like the 2nd string high school quarterback. He can catch, throw, and even tackle. But he can't tackle a superbowl MVP wide receiver. The DC is too high. Only with dumb luck would give him a chance.

The wise retired fighter never misses attacks against the ice giant that the fresh fighter of the king's army struggles with. That's how I likes my D&D.

 

[Stalker0]

4th Edition rules say that if a character shoots his bow in about 40 battles that he will learn to hit better and earn a +1 to hit after leveling-up 2 levels...

In the Play-test, your hit die and your damaging ability increases with level but your hitting ability does not increase at all.

Here's the key: Damage DOES mean you are hitting better.

If I hit a target in armor and do 5 damage, then I've hit a somewhat vulnerable chink in the armor. If I do 15, then I've hit that chink, but with even more precision that's allowed me to inflict a more grevious wound.

Another way to think about it. I can hit the neck with an arrow, or I can hit the key artery in the neck.


Its also important to realize that attack bonuses are capped more than damage ones. What I mean by that is this example.

I have a creature that has 60 hp, and I do 10 damage a shot. No matter how good my attack bonus is, it will take no less than 6 shots to bring him down. If I do 20 damage, I can do it in 3. Now sure, averages say that I will hit more often with the greater attack bonus.....but try telling that to my never fail when I need them lucky dice!


Now, this example is not perfect, and I would also like to get at least a few attack bonuses throughout my career, or perhaps rerolls or extra ways to get advantage through feats and whatnot. But if the damage is the primary scaler, than its fine to consider that damage is the primary way we improve our attacks.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think we are that far apart. I'm not saying 90s Michael Jordan is a level 15 character. I was saying the 1st level character is like the 2nd string high school quarterback. He can catch, throw, and even tackle. But he can't tackle a superbowl MVP wide receiver. The DC is too high. Only with dumb luck would give him a chance.

The wise retired fighter never misses attacks against the ice giant that the fresh fighter of the king's army struggles with. That's how I likes my D&D.

Beyond some minor differences on how we see 1st level characters I think it's mostly aesthetics. I prefer to let hp/damage do the heavy lifting mostly because I think there's more tension if rolling the dice matters. I hate rolling the dice to see if a 1 or 20 comes up and I'm not a huge fan of the propagation of multiple attacks that deal weak damage. Death by a thousand cuts doesn't interest me that much. I'd rather slug the frost giant really hard.

For skills I prefer less specialized PCs that have more reliable results. I like that a novice can with luck achieve similar results as the professional, but the professional just does it. I like my d20 rolls to matter. I'm also a fan of disassociating level progression from skill development. The best sages spend their time with noses stuck in books. The best diplomats spend most of their time at court. You get the idea. As they level fighters fight better. Wizards hone their craft. Thieves get better at stealing stuff and catching folks unawares. Clerics do their god thing. At least that's the way I like it for a more classic D&D feel.

 

[slobster]

Here's the key: Damage DOES mean you are hitting better.

If I hit a target in armor and do 5 damage, then I've hit a somewhat vulnerable chink in the armor. If I do 15, then I've hit that chink, but with even more precision that's allowed me to inflict a more grevious wound.

Oh my yes, this. Attack bonuses aren't the only way to model improving skill.

As to the "+20 or higher on a roll makes the d20 result meaningless", that is simply not true. Say for instance that all characters and monsters in the playtest got a blanket +60 bonus on all skill checks, DCs, saves, opposed rolls, defenses, and attacks. How would that affect the probabilities of hitting, saving, and so on?

Not at all. An attack that used to have a 65% chance of hitting will now have a 65% chance of hitting.

The problem arises when you compare bonuses that are very different, and the believability problems that leads to. A first level blacksmith who has devoted his life to his craft could have a +10 bonus in 4E (assuming skill training and such, it's just an example), but a 20th level wizard who has never hefted a hammer or built something in his life has the same bonus . . . just 'cause.

 

[Minigiant]

Beyond some minor differences on how we see 1st level characters I think it's mostly aesthetics. I prefer to let hp/damage do the heavy lifting mostly because I think there's more tension if rolling the dice matters. I hate rolling the dice to see if a 1 or 20 comes up and I'm not a huge fan of the propagation of multiple attacks that deal weak damage. Death by a thousand cuts doesn't interest me that much. I'd rather slug the frost giant really hard.

For skills I prefer less specialized PCs that have more reliable results. I like that a novice can with luck achieve similar results as the professional, but the professional just does it. I like my d20 rolls to matter. I'm also a fan of disassociating level progression from skill development. The best sages spend their time with noses stuck in books. The best diplomats spend most of their time at court. You get the idea. As they level fighters fight better. Wizards hone their craft. Thieves get better at stealing stuff and catching folks unawares. Clerics do their god thing. At least that's the way I like it for a more classic D&D feel.

I think my main issue is that I don't want my 10th level fighter missing attacks against wimp goblin fodder. Or my master thief struggling with a basic lock. Or my archmage failing to learn a 1st level spell.

Nor do I want my 1st level fighter getting lucky since an 1ce giant rolled under 10 five times and didn't kill him.

Currently the minotaur, ogre, and orc chieftain have to roll a 12 or higher to high the dwarf cleric. If they roll a 2,9, 11, 10, and finally 8; the dwarf would go unharmed. 45% accuracy on a 1st level PC for a minotaur. Whaaaat?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

as an experment a few months ago we took 1/2 level off of 4e.

level 1 16 str 13 dex Long sword +7 vs AC and AC 15
level 8 18 str 15 dex LS +8 vs AC and AC 16
level11 19 str 16 dex LS +8 vs AC and AC 17
level 14 20 str 17 dex LS +9 vs AC and AC 17
level 18 21 str 18 dex LS +9 vs AC and AC 18

Now I will stop there becuse we were told that that 20 caps the stats, but you can have flat math and still increase scores. Heck all stats can bump by 1 at every 4 level: 4,8,12,16,20 andgive a +5 to all stats (max 20) then even a 20th level character would not be that far out of range of a 1st. heck throw in +3 weapon and a +4 armor and they still only increased 5-8 points over 20 levels.

 

[fuindordm]

Surely there's room for a happy medium here? It's fine to make HP and expected damage do the heavy lifting, but that doesn't mean that damage is the only thing that should improve.

One example: 8th level fighter encounters three wights. Can't his skill in combat be used to avoid getting touched until backup arrives?

Another: 8th level fighter vs 1st level fighter. That's a big skill difference, and there should be a difference in the accuracy of the combatants as well as damage per hit. What if they're duelling to "first touch"?

I don't want stacked bonuses to overwhelm the d20 roll by mid levels, but I want a noticeable difference between skilled and unskilled nonetheless.

Bottom line: HP as the sole line of improving defence doesn't work well for all situations.

 

[Campbell]

I think my main issue is that I don't want my 10th level fighter missing attacks against wimp goblin fodder. Or my master thief struggling with a basic lock. Or my archmage failing to learn a 1st level spell.

Nor do I want my 1st level fighter getting lucky since an 1ce giant rolled under 10 five times and didn't kill him.

Currently the minotaur, ogre, and orc chieftain have to roll a 12 or higher to high the dwarf cleric. If they roll a 2,9, 11, 10, and finally 8; the dwarf would go unharmed. 45% accuracy on a 1st level PC for a minotaur. Whaaaat?

I agree that in parts the abstraction breaks down and if anyone deserves an increase in accuracy its the fighter. Of course that's part of the problem with any abstraction especially the mixed metaphor that is Attack rolls/AC and damage/hp in D&D. Still have to see what higher levels entail for the fighter. I wouldn't mean if Clerics and their ilk don't scale though. They enhance themselves through magic. That's good enough for me.

No rogue is going to fail at a mundane task for a skill they're trained in. Don't even need to roll for it. Skill Advantage means that a rogue takes the worse of their check or 10+Ability Mod+Skill. Combined with knack which grants them advantage on any check 2/day they are remarkably consistent. Hence the cool under pressure remark.

Need more information on learning spells. My gut instinct is that spells are treasure and I don't think you should have to roll to use treasure. You earned it by acquiring the spell book/scroll.